Armen J. Pilafjian v. State
210 So. 3d 738
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Pilafjian, subject to a domestic-violence pretrial no-contact order, went to Cary Sparks’s home, located Anne Minetti there, entered without knocking, grabbed Minetti, and threatened her.
- Sparks testified Pilafjian was “always welcomed” and that it was “fine” for him to be at the residence that day, though Sparks later told Pilafjian to leave when an argument began.
- Pilafjian was convicted of burglary of an occupied dwelling, battery, and violating a pretrial release condition; he does not challenge the latter two convictions on appeal.
- Pilafjian argued he had permission (licensed/invited entry) to be at Sparks’s house and requested a jury instruction on that affirmative defense; the trial court denied the instruction.
- The appellate court reviewed the refusal to instruct for abuse of discretion (noting limited discretion in criminal cases) and considered whether Sparks’s testimony provided any evidence supporting consensual entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on licensed/invited entry (affirmative defense to burglary) | Pilafjian: Sparks’s testimony that Pilafjian was "always welcomed" and that it was "fine" to be there constituted evidence of consent, so jury should decide invitation/license | State: Trial court rejected instruction (implicitly contending evidence insufficient as a matter of law) | Court: Reversed burglary conviction; Sparks’s testimony provided some evidence of consensual entry so instruction should have been given (trial court abused discretion) |
| Whether motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted | Pilafjian: alternative challenge argued (not the appellate court’s primary basis) | State: Presented evidence on each burglary element sufficient for jury | Court: Denial of judgment of acquittal affirmed because conflicting evidence supported submission to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hicks, 421 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1982) (licensed or invited entry is an affirmative defense to burglary)
- Delgado v. State, 776 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 2000) (defendant may show premises open to public, licensee, or invitee)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases—Report No. 2014-08, 176 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 2015) (standard instruction requires jury to find defendant was not invited or licensed to convict of burglary)
- Bryant v. State, 102 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (any evidence of invited/licensed entry entitles defendant to instruction; credibility is for the jury)
- Valls v. State, 159 So. 3d 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (same principle regarding invitation/license instruction)
- Jones v. State, 790 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (denial of judgment of acquittal proper where victim’s testimony rebutted consent defense)